Housing & Real Estate

Housing & Real Estate

Research

The $69 billion mortgage interest deduction (MID) is often viewed as an element of the tax code
that promotes middle-class prosperity. However, 64 percent of the benefits, as measured by effective tax reduction, goes to households earning more than $100,000 per year. The large variation in nominal benefits is one of the reasons why many economists state that the MID is regressive.

There was only one lane open as I made my trip to Atlanta; the other three were blocked with those unhappy yellow and black make-believe barrels used by the highway folks. Traffic flow was constrained by efforts to repair potholes and broken pavement. We in the slow lane had little choice in the matter. Instead of 70, we were slowed to 20 miles per hour. We had to accept our fate, or find another route at the next exit.

Some commentators suggest that a private market for U.S. mortgages is no longer possible. Others argue that heavily subsidized government programs have crowded out private providers, making actual competition impossible. The five papers presented here look beyond the housing crisis to present various proposals for the long-term reform of government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and the U.S. mortgage market.

Testimony & Comments

Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Cartwright, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be part of today’s hearing on the effect of Dodd-Frank on community banks. Dodd-Frank was the product of desperation in the face of a deeply painful financial crisis and outrage at the big financial institutions that were at the center of the trouble. Not only does Dodd-Frank fail to effectively address the problems that precipitated the crisis, but it also imposes costly burdens on many businesses that were not central causes of the crisis. Among these are community banks.

I do not believe that the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage can be issued in large volume without taxpay- ers becoming liable for interest-rate risk. Conversely, if we reform the housing system so that the private sector truly bears the risk, then borrowers would encounter a large differential between the cost of a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and the cost of a loan with an interest rate that is fixed for only 5 years. Borrowers should be making their choices based on this true cost differential.

A reverse mortgage for seniors is a reasonable idea, but should not be guaranteed by the Federal government. It is an ownership decision and the Federal government must stop trying to micromanage this decision, particularly since there is an easy alternative that does not require government guarantees.

Let us be wary of creating another Jurassic Park policy change. We are in unchartered waters for housing finance and Federal Reserve policies and any further changes should be enacted with extreme caution.

After billions of dollars have been spent, Hope VI and this bill should focus on a better way to help the poor rather than “a lick of paint” approach public housing. After all, $350 million is a drop in the proverbial bucket…

Anthony B. Sanders testified before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs - Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development about transparency and accountability in foreclosure appeals.

Expert Commentary

The gulf remains wide between Wallison and his opponents, who refuse to ascribe any blame for the crisis to Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and other misguided government interventions in mortgage lending. A fair-minded person should at least read Wallison's book before committing wholeheartedly to an opposing narrative.

Finance is not a plaything for policymakers. It is the fuel for economic dynamism. When policy steers finance away from competitive opportunities, we make recessions worse, recoveries slower and economic outcomes less equal. That’s three big strikes against how we govern housing finance, and it’s time to change.

A gaggle of state and federal officials just announced a $16.7 billion settlement with Bank of America. The federal government and participating states will take part of that hefty sum, and the rest will go to select underwater homeowners and nonprofits. This record-breaking settlement stems from the crisis-era mortgage activities by Bank of America and the two companies it probably now wishes it had not acquired, Countrywide and Merrill Lynch.

The mortgage interest tax deduction is often justified as promoting homeownership among the middle class and supporting industries that employ middle-class workers. The deduction also has broad public support: a recent survey found that six out of ten Americans oppose its elimination.

If the United States is ever to enjoy sensible policy in housing, the choices will have to be made at a time when officials are focused on the public interest and firmly reject the suggestions coming from the social engineers and the special-interest lobbyists. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case today.

Experts

Arnold Kling is a Mercatus Center–affiliated senior scholar at George Mason University and a member of the Financial Markets Working Group. He specializes in housing-finance policy, financial institutions, macroeconomics, and the inside workings of America’s federal financial institutions. He also is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC.